Thomas uses a broader definition of science than is used today. By science, he refers to a disciplined study of a subject using rational processes, whereas modern science implies study of the natural world, and uses more specific methods such as experimentation. For example, Thomas includes among the sciences mathematics, geometry, and music. Therefore, I do not maintain that Aquinas makes a case for theology being a science in the modern sense, but that he does make the case that it is a rational discipline. Even so, in my post, I will compare theology to examples from modern science because modern science is widely accepted today as a rational discipline.

St. Thomas begins his argument in the body of article 2 by pointing out there are two kinds of sciences practiced in his day. Those that begin from first principles known “by the natural light of intelligence,” and those that build on principles given by “higher” sciences. Examples of the first kind of science are mathematics and geometry. Mathematicians and geometers in Thomas’ day did not base their work on the results of any other discipline, but began with definitions and principles obvious and agreeable to all. Deductive reasoning would then be used to derive knowledge based on these principles. Today’s study of Euclidian geometry, which is commonly taught in High School, follows the same pattern. The geometry student begins with definitions and postulates that can be agreed upon based on common sense. Then deductive reasoning is used to prove theorems based on the definitions and postulates. The same process is used to prove more theorems based on previously proved theorems. Using this process, an elaborate set of theorems can be produced.

The second kind of science that Thomas describes begins with knowledge gained from a “higher” science. By “higher”, Thomas means a science that is closer to first principles. For example, the study of perspective in art began in the Middle Ages, and it made use of knowledge gained from the study of geometry. However, an artist did not have to start at the first principles of geometry and derive theorems about parallel lines before he could use them in his painting. Instead, he could take the results of the work of the geometer as his starting point. Similarly, a person building a pipe organ does not have to derive methods of manipulating ratios in order to determine the length of his pipes. He can make use of the methods developed by mathematicians.

We see this kind of layering of knowledge much more today because the body of knowledge is so much greater now than it was then. Physics makes use of mathematics; chemistry uses physics; biology uses chemistry; and medicine uses biology. A doctor does not start at the first principles of mathematics and work his way up to cancer treatment. He surely had some math and physics as an undergrad, but soon put much more focus on chemistry and biology in his education. In his day-to-day practice, he doesn’t do the work of a chemist, but makes use of the work of chemists in the medications he prescribes.

So, St. Thomas says that theology is like the second kind of these sciences, except that rather than being based on the results of another human science, it is based on divine revelation. In other words, God provides the basic body of knowledge that the theologian works with, and then the theologian uses rational thought processes to work with that “data”. A good theologian carefully examines the sources of revelation to make sure he has access to true revelation, and that it has been acurately received, passed along or recorded. He then must use rational methods of interpretation, including maintaining consistancy with other sources of revelation, in order to apply the meaning of it to a given situation.

Theology is very similar to other fields of study. It resembles fields in the humanities such as philosophy, history, anthropology, and psychology more than fields such as physics and chemistry because the subject of theology is a divine person, and the humanities deal with people where “hard sciences” like physics deal with things that can be experimented upon.

Now the crux for theology, then, is divine revelation. If there is not a God, then there can be no divine revelation, so that would invalidate the data on which theology is based. If there is a God, and he has revealed himself in the sources that theology studies, then it is just as sound of a study as any other. Indeed, it is the highest field of study because it concerns the highest subject: the Creator of the Universe. All other fields deal with things in the creation, rather than the Creator.

Here is an analogy. Lets say that an astronomer using a radio telescope picks up signals that he believes are coming from broadcasts from another planet around a star many light years away. He teams up with a linguist and other experts to decode and interpret the signals. If he is wrong, and he is only picking up radiation from some natural source, than he and his colleagues are wasting their time. However, if he is right, and he has found the communications of other intelligent life in the galaxy, he is doing some of the most important scientific work on the planet. Either way, his work is rational. There is nothing irrational about the possibility of intelligent life elsewhere in the galaxy, and he is using completely rational methods in his study.

Although there are atheists who think they have explained everything, and there is no need for God, their explanations do nothing to eliminate the possibility of God. And since most humans who have ever lived believe there is a God, and many claim to have heard from God in some form or another, then it is not unreasonable to study these claims. This is the conclusion I came to at age 16, and within a year, I had found convincing reasons to believe the Bible is a record of divine revelation. From there I learned about Jesus Christ as the Word of God who taking on human flesh and living and dying 2000 years ago gave us the fullness of divine revelation. It took over 25 more years of experience and study to come to understand the important and unique role the Catholic Church has in transmitting and interpretting the revelation that came through Christ. So, I’m really just a beginner in Theology. Although I’ve learned a lot in the last 30 years, I feel like most of my time has been spent on the front steps of the Cathedral, and I’ve only recently walked through the doors and have begun to admire the beautiful artwork that covers the walls and ceiling.

This is an incredibly relevant question today, and St. Thomas addressed it over 700 years ago. It’s true that he didn’t have access to the modern science we practice today, but his definition of “philosophy” is that which is known through reason, and this would include modern science.

Thomas’ answer is based on the idea that the purpose of human life is directed towards God, who exceeds the grasp of human reason. “Hence it was necessary for the salvation of man that certain truths which exceed human reason should be made known to him by divine revelation” (I,1,1b). If there is an infinite transcendant God like the God of Christianity, and the purpose of human life is directed towards him, then in order to know how to reach God, we would need information from God that is beyond our ability to figure out on our own. In other words, God is a being so high above us that he must stoop down and tell us about himself if we are to know him.

Now Thomas does admit that there are “truths about God which human reason could have discovered,” (indeed he will demonstrate some of those truths later) but it was still necessary for God to reveal them to us because only a few people would have the ability to figure it out on their own, and it would take a long time, and they would make mistakes. So even in the case of these truths about God that are accessible to human reason, God reveals them so that they can be accurately known to all.

Of course, most of the people who today say that modern science tells us everything we need to know don’t believe that there is a God, or that the goal of human existence is to know God. Therefore, they would not be convinced by this argument, which assumes God’s existence. However, Thomas will address this issue later when he demonstrates what we can know about God through human reason. If he can use human reason to show that there is a God and that knowing him is the ultimate goal of human existence, then he will have support for the argument made in this article. Many people make the mistake of looking at one of St. Thomas’ arguments in the Summa in isolation, but that approach misses the interrelated structure of his work. I only hope I can capture a little bit of that in these blog posts.

Finally, I want to point out the Reply to Objection 2 in this Article. The Objection is that because philosophy deals with theological topics, there is no need for a study of theology apart from philosophy. The Reply notes that different intellectual disciplines, or “sciences” can come to the same conclusion using different means. “For the astronomer and the physicist both may prove the same conclusion: that the earth, for instance, is round: the astronomer by means of mathematics (i.e. abstracting from matter), but the physicist by means of matter itself” (I,1,1r2). Therefore, it is ok if philosophy comes to some of the same conclusions that are reached through theological study of divine revelation.

There are two things that I want to point out about this Reply. The first is that people in the Middle Ages knew the Earth was round. The second is that Thomas believes that there is one reality, and that different methods of investigating that reality should eventually lead to the same truth. John Polkinghorne makes the same point in his book, One World: The Interaction of Science and Theology, where he says there should ultimately be no conflict between modern science and theology if they are done rightly because they are two ways of seeking the truth of the one world we inhabit.

You will see that each Article itself asks a question about the Question topic, and the Article appears to take a yes or no answer. St. Thomas will have an answer to the question, but first will list a series of Objections to his answer. He attempts to state every possible argument against the answer he will give. After the Objections comes the Sed Contra, which is Latin for “On the contrary,” which are the opening words of the section. Here Thomas quotes some authority such as the Bible, a Church Father such as St. Augustine, or a philosopher such as Aristotle. Following the Sed Contra is the Body, which always begins with the words, “I answer that,” where St. Thomas gives his own answer to the question. Finally, the Article concludes with Replies to each of the Objections listed at the beginning of the Article.

When I took a course on the Summa Theologiae, I first thought that I needed to focus on a yes or no answer to each Article. I soon learned that I was missing the point of the Articles. As I said before, they are a means to explore the bigger Question, and sometimes they don’t have a single yes or no answer. Many times, the answer is nuanced, and what Thomas does in the Body is to make distinctions, which can lead to a deeper understanding of the topic. Sometimes, a Reply to an Objection will go into further depth into an aspect of the topic.

I will use a citation system for referring to the Summa that I learned in my class. The Parts are labeled with Roman numerals, after which the Question and Article numbers are given using Arabic numerals. Objections are indicated by an “o” followed by then Objection number, and Replies to the Objections are indicated by a “r” followed by a number. The Sed Contra is indicated by “sc” and the Body is “b.” Therefore, the Reply to Objection 2 in Article 2 of Question 109 in the First half of the Second Part is I-II,109,2r2. I know this is probably confusing, but I will also include hyperlinks to the online text of the referenced article, and I think the numbering system will make sense after a while.

While I’m the first to admit that we know some things today that were not known 50, 100, 500, or 1000 years ago, I think it is also possible we have forgotten important things that people knew back then. I am not suggesting that we somehow go back to the past. It is neither possible or desirable to do so. However, it is a mistake to think that progress means we must forget what came before. Instead, we should recognize that the great minds of the past still have something to teach us, and their perspective may be just what we need to help us solve the problems we face today.

Last January 28th, the feast day of St. Thomas Aquinas, I attended the annual Aquinas Lecture sponsored by the Philosophy Department at University of Dallas. Thomas Aquinas is one of the greatest minds of the Middle Ages, and arguably of all human history. The talk inspired me to begin studying his Summa Theologiae again. I had taken a course on it a few years ago, but I want to go deeper into it. After going through a few articles of the Summa, I thought I should write some posts about what I’m studying in order to share some of the pearls I’m finding there as well as deepen my own understanding through writing. My hope is that this will work into a blogging series that is beneficial to myself and others.

The book is short and easy to read. In addition to describing the New Atheist movement, it also points out its weaknesses, and makes the claim that at the time of writing, 2010, the movement was in decline. Although I think the book does a good job of pointing out the problems of the New Atheist, it never goes deep into any of the arguments. It’s informative for someone who is already a believer, but it is not likely to be persuasive for an unbeliever.

Another issue I have with the book is its optimism. Even if the New Atheism is failing among intellectuals, I think it has had an impact on the greater culture at large, which may not examine the arguments too carefully. Through rhetoric and ridicule, the message is getting out that religion is irrational and dangerous.

So although McGrath is correct that the New Atheists will not eradicate religion, it’s provided plenty of material to confuse people and provide excuses for those who want to reject God.

I know people who are disappointed and in some cases disgusted by the choices they have in the Presidential election. Neither candidate is someone that I can really look up to, but after reading about Hitler, I decided I am ok with that. Politics is a dirty game, and it is very rare to find saints in government. I wish that were not the case, but for the Christian, it should not be too surprising.

The Christian already has a Messiah, Jesus, and it is in him that we place our ultimate hope. However, as citizens in a democratic republic, we have a responsibility to participate in the democratic process. Our goal should be to vote the best that we can according to the principles that we believe are right. We will seldom have a choice that exactly matches what we believe is right, so we have to pick the closest one. Then after the election, we must support whoever is in power with our prayers.

I tried to make the case in my last post that everyone is religious in one form or another. Even if you don’t like the term religious, I hope you will admit that you have some kind of an underlying world view, whether it is of a secular or religious nature, which affects the way you interpret events and make decisions. People who want to restrict religious liberty are in effect trying to force a particular world view on people, or render opposing world views ineffective. That is, they want to control the way someone thinks at a basic level, or if they can’t do that, keep them from behaving in a way that is consistent with what they think.

I have heard people say, “it is fine for you to practice your religion, as long as you keep it in your church.” This is like saying, “you are allowed to think however you like as long as you keep it to yourself and your small group of like-minded (and strange) friends.”

Right now I’m reading Bonhoeffer – Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy, by Eric Metaxas. Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a young German Lutheran pastor who was part of a conspiracy to assassinate Adolf Hitler. One of the last things Hitler did before his death was order the execution of Bonhoeffer before he could be liberated by the Allies. I’m about half-way through the book right now, and WWII has not yet started. However, early in the book we see that one of the first things the Nazis did as they were gaining power was infiltrate and control the German national church. Unlike the United States, Germany had a national church, and the Nazis recognized that they could have great influence on the thinking of the German people by controlling religion. This forced Bonhoeffer and certain other pastors into a situation where their practice of religion became illegal, and they were characterized as dangerous extremists.

The reason religious liberty is important is that it is fundamental to freedom of thought and expression. When the government or some power group is able to restrict religious practice, they are developing the ability to restrict any opposition and are thus becoming tyrannical.

Therefore, even those who do not consider themselves religious should still be supportive of religious liberty as an important part of a free society. If you don’t like what certain religions say, you should engage them in discourse and debate rather than trying to silence and restrict them.

Religions make statements about the ultimate reality that undergirds the physical world in which we live. From this ultimate reality come ideas of good and evil which affect the decisions we make. It is impossible to make a meaningful decision without any idea of good and evil. I chose to eat Cheerios for breakfast this morning because oats are supposed to improve the health of my heart, and I think good health is a good thing.

Here is what I observe are the morals of many who approach issues from a non-religious point of view, which I will call secularism. Happiness and self-fulfillment is good, but suffering is evil. Equality is good, but anything that treats any class of people differently is evil. Love is good, but anything that interferes with the expression of love is evil. The only difference between secularism and any religion is that there is no supernatural basis for its beliefs. The only basis I’ve seen is that this is what a particular group of people agree is right. If you think a particular thing is good, and there are enough people who agree with you, then that’s your basis.

Some say that they have a morality based on science, but science is incapable of making moral values. Science can tell us why we feel pain, but it can’t tell us that pain is bad. Indeed, science tells us that pain is a survival mechanism. Science cannot even tell us that it is better to be alive than to be dead. Science can try to predict climate change, but it cannot tell us if it is good or bad. Costal cities might be flooded by rising sea levels, but is that bad from a scientific point of view? Does the universe care about New Orleans?

Others say that they use Philosophy as a source of moral values. This is better than Science because at least morality and ultimate reality are in the purview of Philosophy. However, Philosophy must address the claims of religion if it is to claim an answer for ultimate reality, and there is no philosophical consensus that has been able rule out religion and establish a secular moral framework with which we can all agree.

There were two important atheistic philosophies that inspired significant social movements. The first is the materialistic philosophy of Karl Marx, which was behind the totalitarian Communist regimes that arose in the twentieth century. The second was Friedrich Nietzsche’s atheistic philosophy of power, which inspired Adolph Hitler’s idea of an Aryan master race that was destined to rule the world.*

Today’s secularist cannot point to a philosophical genius such as Marx or Nietzsche as a foundation for his views, but like both of them, he has chosen to reject a religious basis. In doing so, he has made a religious choice. There is nothing conclusive to demonstrate that his secularism is superior to any supernatural religion. Indeed, the novelty of today’s secularism means that it is untested regarding long-term results. So, for example, since there is no history of any significant practice of same-sex marriage, we don’t know what will result from it. I am not claiming that this is a conclusive argument against same-sex marriage, but I am claiming that there is no reason to automatically prefer the secular point of view.

We live in a culture with many different religious views; how do we decided which one to follow? Ultimately, we have to work something out that we can all live with if we want to maintain a free society. We have to have a conversation where all can participate. We cannot silence a voice because it is religious.

*See Eric Mataxes, Bonhoeffer – Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy, pp 168-169.

There are still Christian teachings, however, that appear to have contradictions that are not so easily cleared up. Indeed, most of the core teachings in Catholicism involve apparent contradictions such that we have a special name for these beliefs: mysteries. Protestant Christianity also has some of these mysteries, but I think it’s safe to say that the Catholic and Orthodox traditions have the most.

Here are a few examples. We teach that there is only one God, but we also say that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. This is known as the Holy Trinity. We say that Jesus Christ is fully God and fully Human, not half God and half human, or some mixture of humanity and deity. We say that God is absolutely sovereign, and that everything that happens is according to his plan, but we also say humans have free will, and that their choices are truly free such that they are responsible for what they choose. We say that the little fetus in the womb of the Virgin Mary was the creator of the universe, including Mary, in whose womb he inhabited. We say that there will be a resurrection of the body, even for those whose bodies are completely decomposed, and whose atoms have been scattered and through the course of the food chain end up in other people’s bodies. Catholics say that in the sacraments, material substances are used to convey spiritual benefits. Catholics also say that the bread and wine at the Mass becomes the body and blood of Jesus, even though to all appearances, including scientific analysis, they seem to still be bread and wine. Catholics also call Mary the Virgin Mother, as well as the Mother of God. Finally, Christians claim that God is almighty as well as ultimate goodness and love, but he also allows evil in the world.

Although Catholic theology has worked on these teachings for nearly 2000 years, and has come up with formulations that provide some measure of explanation, there is still an unfathomable depth to them that no human has been able to penetrate, and so they remain mysteries. I have heard many people express frustration because their questions on these topics to their pastor, priest, or teacher, have been met with the answer: “it’s a mystery.” While I’m sure in some cases the teacher should have made more of an effort at an explanation, in the end, it must still be said, “it’s a mystery.”

Why do we Christians put up with this nonsense? If the Christian God is real, why did he make his religion so difficult? Well, there are alternatives. Judaism and Islam reject the Trinity as well as the divinity of Jesus. I believe Islam also rejects human free will. I have read about people who went from Christianity to Islam precisely because the theology of Islam was much more rational and not so mysterious.

But Christianity, and especially Catholicism, has stubbornly held on to these mysteries when a lot of trouble could be saved by making some concessions. It’s not that people haven’t tried. The history of Christianity is full of various groups and individuals who have tried to simplify a doctrine in one way or another. Sometimes these simplified doctrines attracted a large following, but each time, a flaw would become apparent, either immediately or over time, that showed such a simplification took the Church away from the truth that had been revealed through Jesus Christ through the Apostles.

But why should it be so surprising that the subject of the most high God has aspects that are beyond human understanding? The most ordinary things around us are full of mysteries such that even the greatest scientists who have devoted their lives to understanding them still have unanswered questions. I have started reading a 400 page book on quantum mechanics, Absolutely Small by Michael Fayer, that attempts to explain basic things like why a cherry is red. His goal is to make it understandable to people who don’t have the extensive training required to understand the math used in physicist today. According to the reviews, there is disagreement on if he has achieved his goal. If the redness of a cherry is so hard to explain, why do we expect simple answers to questions about the nature of the Creator of the cherry?

I was listening to a call-in show on the local Catholic radio station where the topic had to do with confronting atheism. The guest was demonstrating the existence of God by looking at the Big Bang and other aspects of cosmology and physics. The show was only accepting calls that day from atheists, agnostics, and skeptics. One atheist called in with a long string of objections that went something like, “You Catholics claim to have an infallible Pope, but you are anti-science, you know: Galileo. And there’s the whole clergy sex abuse scandal.” In a matter of seconds he cataloged a list of common objections to the Catholic faith that all fall under a similar category. They are all beliefs that on the surface seem contradictory, but with some careful study can be seen to actually be consistent.

Here are a few of the issues that are commonly raised. I will only state the briefest of explanations, though I may venture a fuller explanation someday in my theology blog.

1. The Pope is supposed to be infallible, but Popes have clearly made mistakes or have done evil things. In fact, the Catholic claim for Papal Infallibility is very limited. We do not claim the Pope is sinless or never makes a mistake. We claim that in a special circumstance of specific teaching on faith (what we believe) and morals (how we should live) to the Universal Church (not some specific case), the Pope speaks infallibly. People who have studied this doctrine have found less than a dozen times in the 2000 year history of the Church where they believe this has happened. Therefore, of the 265 Popes in the history of the Church, less than 5% of them have said anything that Catholics claim is subject to the Papal Infallibility doctrine.
2. The Catholic Church claims to support science, but look at what they did to Galileo. The Galileo incident is very complicated, and reflects many human problems, including politics, fear of change, and personality clashes. Church authorities made mistakes, as did Galileo. There are plenty of reasons behind the trouble Galileo got into without positing that the Catholic Church is inherently anti-science.
3. The Church claims to teach love, yet hates gays. The Catholic Church has a very consistent moral theology rooted in the idea that humans are created by God, and that God has revealed the best way for them to live. The most loving thing for the Church to do is to share these moral teachings so that people do not follow a path to self-destruction. This moral teaching touches on all aspects of life, but the area of sexual morality is one where the Church is at odds with changing values of the last 50 years. If the Church believes adultery, divorce, pre-marital sex, homosexual acts, and contraception are harmful to individuals as well as society as a whole, it would be unloving to keep this teaching a secret. In confronting these practices, Christians are taught to “speak the truth in love” (Ephesians 4:15). However, even when Christians take great care to be loving in their presentation of their beliefs, any opposition to all forms of sexual freedom is labeled “hate speech” or an attack on women, gays, or some other group.
4. What about the clergy sex-abuse scandal? The scandal is a horrendous moral failure of individual priests and bishops, and exposed a system that was ill prepared to handle these kinds of problems. However, the scandal is not a result of Catholic beliefs, but is an example of what can happen when those in the clergy depart from Catholic beliefs. There are two reasons I believe this. The first is that the increase in incidents of abuse correspond with a weakening of traditional moral teaching in the seminaries. The second is that the proportion of abuse cases to clergy (at least in the United States) is no higher in the Catholic Church than it is in other churches or in state institutions that deal with children, such as public schools. I admit that the scandal in the Church is more serious because of the position of moral leadership that priests are supposed to uphold, but when looking for the root cause, the statistics do not point to this being a uniquely Catholic problem.

These are all cases where there is an apparent contradiction or problem due to an insufficient understanding of the actual circumstances or content of Catholic practice and teaching. A little bit of research into the facts can clear up all of them. In my next post, I will addresses the areas of Christian belief, Catholic and otherwise, that are not so easily cleared up.